Superior bound to enter the heir of his Vassal, but not till he has paid the by-gone Non-entry Duties.
Pringle of Greenknow v. The Earl of Home
1698.
January. Case No. No. 21.
Effect of a discharge from the superior's predecessor.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Pringle charges the Earl to receive and enter him in some lands. The Earl suspends, that they must pay the by-gone non-entry and feu-duties, conform to the clause, faciendo quod de jure facere. tenetur. Answered, I have a discharge from your father, and an obligement to enter me gratis. Replied, That discharge cannot operate against me, unless you prove I represent the granter. Duplied, You are the hæres linealis and nearest to him in blood, and it must be presumed you represent, unless you instruct you have right to the superiority by a singular title, and then you may plead, the discharge cannot operate against a singular successor. The question was, If the Earl must produce his title, that will exclude the discharge produced, or if Greenknow must prove he represents that person who gave the said discharge? The Lords found the Earl obliged to show his right to the superiority, by which it would appear if the discharge would subsist or not; and if he was not infeft, then the vassal, on his decreet of his tinsel of the superiority, would go to the next superior, the King, and obtain himself infeft by the Chancery.
